Wait For Companion Progress

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the blocking behavior (waits for events, finish, or timeout) but omits return value, error handling, or side effects on the companion process. This is partial transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and a practical usage hint. No redundant content; every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the caller receives (e.g., events, status). It also omits timeout behavior (return vs. throw) and the purpose of cwd. These gaps are significant for a wait operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema documents timeoutMs and sinceCursor, but cwd has no description anywhere. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond referencing sinceCursor. With 67% schema coverage and no compensatory detail, parameter semantics are underdeveloped.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool waits for companion events, finish, or timeout, and references sinceCursor, making the action specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like companion_status or companion_recent, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Use after companion_start' provides a clear usage context, indicating when in the workflow this tool applies. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool comparisons, so it does not fully meet the top tier.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.